Check it out: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/20032007/397/bear-cub-0.html
So should they kill the cub?
2007-03-20 08:30:09 · 22 answers · asked by Buzzard 7 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I think it just shows these nutters hate people, and will rebel and complain the matter what is done. Nobody should listen to them. If the Zoo had been suggesting it was killed they'd have argued the opposite. Give the little creature a chance.
2007-03-21 03:01:37 · answer #1 · answered by Barbara Doll to you 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I looked at that earlier and I say no way! Why is it any different from any other animal being brought up in a zoo for heaven's sake?! just because it was hand reared, it won't need to hunt or defend itself if its in a bloody zoo will it?!
I love animals but i think these animal rights activists have started to make trouble just for the sake of it. they've started to have such extreme views that they seem to forget what's at the heart of their crusades - animal welfare!
2007-03-20 08:34:00 · answer #2 · answered by G*I*M*P 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Keep him in the zoo - he will at least be loved and his purpose in life is now to educate humans on the senseless destruction of his natural habitat. We need his genes for future bears
2007-03-20 08:36:23 · answer #3 · answered by gaviscon 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should be kept alive and healthy. My goodness, the polar bear is endangered and this bear could be used for publicity purposes and as a breeder to expand the population. Besides, it is healthy - why kill it?!!
2007-03-20 08:35:18 · answer #4 · answered by zowar1363 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i heard this story this morning and wasnt quite sure if i had heard correctly! so rather than let it be brought up by humans they would kill it?!? is it just me or does this make a mockery of animal rights? bet these are the same people who bleat on about right to life. let it be brought up by humans-it will still have a good life.
2007-03-20 08:39:40 · answer #5 · answered by louie3 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would have to say no but i also understand why they want to it would happen in the wild but in the wild it would be starvation where they want to get it over an done with but I would still say no they bring up tigers without there mothers why not this time
2007-03-20 08:34:42 · answer #6 · answered by laurabrown26 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. How can they say they believe in animal rights if they take away the bear's right to life?
2007-03-20 08:36:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No way. I couldn't believe it when I saw that on the news today. Just because he won't be able to live in the wild doesn't mean he should be dead. Call themselves Animal Rights people, they should be ashamed of themselves.
2007-03-20 08:33:50 · answer #8 · answered by KB 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Are they worried about it being 'domesticated'? You have to understand their mess; mummy didn't want him, and they couldn't let it loose amongst another family in the wilds. What to do? It's hard!
2007-03-20 08:37:37 · answer #9 · answered by nativexile 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No animal should be put down unless they are suffering !...Im amazed and disgusted that animal rights activists would suggest such a thing...x
2007-03-20 08:34:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋